header-logo header-logo

20 October 2017
Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

Unlawful employment tribunal fees to be paid back

The government is to pay back all employment tribunal fees—ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court in July—along with 0.5% interest.

It will be paid in stages. In the first stage, the government will contact about 1,000 people who have applied for refunds concerning single claims. The scheme will be opened up four weeks later to everyone else who paid fees.

Those who paid fees can register online at ethelpwithfees@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk or by post at Employment Tribunal Central Office (England and Wales)/Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Fees, PO Box 10218, Leicester LE1 8EG.

The government said it is also working with trade unions who have supported large multiple claims potentially involving hundreds of claimants.

Trade union Unison won a historic victory in R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, with seven Justices unanimously holding that the government acted unlawfully in introducing fees ranging from £160 to £230 or £950 for further hearings, and as much as £1,200 for certain claims, in July 2013.

Employment lawyers have been expectantly waiting to see how the government would go about paying back the fees. They have highlighted how, while some people paid the unlawful fees, others will have been deterred from bringing their claims.

Unison head of legal services Adam Creme said: ‘The government is now making good on its promise to refund anyone who was unfairly charged to take their employers to court.

‘The government got it very wrong on fees, as ministers found to their cost when they lost at the Supreme Court in the summer. But the real tragedy of the fees fiasco is the thousands of wronged employees who couldn’t afford to shell out to get justice and so lost out. Nothing can be done to help them, or to bring the many unscrupulous employers, who broke the law and got away with it, to court.’

The government has said, in response to a Parliamentary question, that the estimated cost of refunding the fees is £33m.

Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll